Slashdot Mirror
AOL May Open Instant Messaging To Other Servers
Brento writes "MSN is reporting that 'AOL said that it's almost done developing the technology that would allow its messaging services to operate with those offered by other industry players.' The article is light on details, but it sounds like they're going to offer interoperability directly with other servers -- not allow users to log in with new clients. 'It expects to complete an agreement with a leading technology company to conduct a live test between two different servers later this summer.' That would mean good news for competing services like MSN, but it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want."
Of course, since other projects have demonstrated they can do the same things that AIM does, and AOL has repeatedly shut them out of its IM network, it's interesting to see a sudden interest in "interoperability."
I already can. I set up a Jabber server with AIM, MSN, ICQ, and Yahoo support. When I log on I can get messages from any of the services in a single client right now. Jabber rules!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want.
So let me get this straight - you're complaining that to get full control over how you use IM, you have to set up your own IM server, while if you use one graciously provided by someone else, you have to play by their rules. What's the problem with that? I don't see why you have some sort of god-given right to use AOL's servers. The only legitimate complaint I see is that AIM already has a huge market share, which makes entry into the field have a high barrier, but if they're going to interoperate with other servers, that removes that argument - all you have to do to use IM how you want is to run the server yourself, rather than leeching off theirs.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is due to the fact that the other IM players consistently block the IPs that the transporst are run from, and hence, they are only up between the time it's moved to a new IP, and the time they figure it out and block that IP. j.o. entire Class C is now banned.. 8-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Jabber does NOT require you have accounts with every other service. Jabber is actually one of the only services besides Microsoft that can actually support the capability right now to deal with external IM systems.
Jabber is not a client, it's an XML messaging architecture that JabberIm is built on. It named based on DNS, and essentially has it's namespace scope limited only by name resolution.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The interesting thing is, of all of the IM systems, Jabber, I can promise, will be the first one to support external access to AIM. It is one of only two IM systems that I know of that has the capability of addressing 'external' namespace out of the box.
If it is also based on the psuedo protocol put forth by the Open IM group, it will be in Jabber within the hour. 8-P
Jabber is entirely based on the idea of, implement it the right way. By doing this, it accepts the idea that other speak other languages to talk to 'things'. Open namespaces allow nearly any 'node' on the network to really be anything. A client, an 'adapter' (Transport), or heck, even a toaster..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yes, that would be nice, and perhaps, in the future, this will be the case. With larger name backers, like Disneys !Go network, this will happpen..
And yes, the !Go Messenger is, you guessed it, Jabber.. 8-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
True, there aren't so many jabber clients available under *inux, becouse many of the developers actually use Gnome, but great news..
*ANYONE* can write one. Several have halfway started some of their owns, but never really gotten one production ready..
Don't write it off becouse of it's lack of a client you like. It's jsut now maturing.. 8-P Check our Jarl if you want an alertantive.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
But you might use their mail server. In the case of Jabber, it's a nice, open, XML based protocol, with several clients out there that are pretty darned good. Even Disney is using it for their !Go Messenger system.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
And while we're at it, we'll just go back to using gopher instead of HTTP. I mean after all, you could just..
Yes, I'm joking.. SMTP, while capable of doing IM, isn't really built for it. The setup and breakdown on connections required for mail deleivery would kill a large scale IM system..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Well, when one makes so little good decisions, I always find it important to give positive reinforcement with the actualy GOOD ones they have.. 8-P
'Come little Microsoft, let me show you the way.. Why yes, thats a WONDERFUL butterfly..'
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Really now?
I'd love for you to show me the TOC protocol itself? If AOL 'encourages' it's use, where is it?
And tell me, do you also have access to the AIM chatrooms? If you look carefully, you'll notice that TOC maintains it's own, baren, featureless chatrooms.
TOC exists as their test clients 'failover' protocol, and often messages send on it are lost or dropped, servers timeout, change, etc, and your rosters will disappear.
Show me SOMETHING from AOL that recomends TOC as an external interface to the AIM system..
And I'd also put money on the fact that, if enough people actually used TOC, the servers and protocol used would simply vanish into thin air..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Funny, I do the same thing.. And becouse Jabber is based on DNS, I host my own jabber servers, to.. 8-P
Anyway, the point is, an open, free to implement system based on a good, open namespace, wins every time.. And the only system out there that can do this currently IS Jabber..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
You where doing it on such a small scale, that they haven't noticed and decided it's finally time to shut down that legacy based, unsupported system known as TOC.
The only reason they still support TOC is due to it's use by certain larger partners, that incorperate AIM capabilities for a fee. Trust me. Get enough users, and enough publicity, and you'll see those TOC servers thrown onto a VPN and out from under your feet so fast, you won;t have time to cusion your arse from the code, hard ground..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I'm one of the individuals who has, on and off, been working with the rest of the crew to put in time and effort to get it off the ground, and a good system. Many of us here are. You wanna know who I am? I'm the type of person this affects. Other have put in even more time and effort then I have.. (Ok, all I did was occasionally beat a drum on and off for the last few years), but the point is this.
We're the ones making the systems you'll use tommorow..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Well, beyond that, they can send messages to any other JID. The domains of a JID can and DO implement things other then users accounts..
Imagine being able to subscribe to a mailing list that didn't require you to send a mail to do it, but gave you a dynamic form?
How about a stock ticker interface that you could dynamically monitor..
With a Jabber account, you have access to any service Jabber can provide. In some cases, external gateways to other IM systems, ones that don;t require a login to their local namespace, but will trust the servers..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yep, thats the protocol spec that AOL had posted over 2 years ago now, which was gleefully ripped off of their web site once the higher ups figured out what was going on.
That same protocol will also be gleefully ripped from the servers, and any services based on the protocol are whats going to be 'dicked'.
And the chatrooms themselves aren't linked to any of the other chatrooms for a reason. As an example, try using AIM, then a TOC based client. You will not see eachothers rooms. The TOC system has it's own set of chatrooms, etc..
TOC is only still around becouse of the AIM Express client, which uses it..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
As for your first point, Jabber does exactly that. It uses DNS name resolution for the server scope. It even queries off of the SRV records, so you can setup your server just like email..
As for your second, regarding the use of SMTP for IM, a direct connection between clients would have several limiting factors, beyond the fact that bloat would now be required in the SMTP protocol itself.
A) Giving our your IP like handy snacks is a bad thing
B) Firewalls. Bleh. No incomming connections there. Granted, could fallback to s2s via the SMTP Server.
Basically, one could go on, but SMTP is 'Simple Mail Transport Protocol'. EMail is different from email, any way you say it. Sure, anything could be made to do anything. SMTP could be used more easily, but it wasn't built for it..
Generalized tools for a more specific purpose due to job well. Generalized tools used to generalize everything just won't work..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I'm not sure if you EVER looked at it, but it's a list of requirements for a protocol, NOT A PROTOCOL itself. IMPP does not exist as a protocol, only the requirements that it should meet. Several protocols where proposed via RFCs submitted, but non actually accepted, and utter chaos to this day.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Err, thats due to the use of JabberCOM, and the fact that, it's very hard to use connection points in a Visual C++, etc, application. But saying 'they can't offer a client besides Delphi of VB' is silly. Anyone who cares to can go ahead and implement one. Even if using VisualC++, by using the existing JabberOO package.
I have NEVER heard of a system being questions becouse of the languages that the end client developers choose to use.
If you want a smaller client, then write one. The clients are NOT that big, unless your comparing them to notepad.. Currently, I'm running WinJab, and it's total memory footprint is 4 Megs. Little big, sure. Could it be smaller? Heck ya, but it's not that bad compared to ICQ, etc, and is most certainly on par with what it takes.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Disney paid for Jabber.com's server and support. They also assisted in a stress test to well over a 100k simo connected users..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Thats the point. The Jabber protocol itself doesn't care. The external systems care, with the exception of MSIM, which, if opened up more, can allow this as well. In the case of MSIM, it does do name resolution, and you CAN setup your own MSIM servers, and NOT have an account on MSIM, but be running off of your own exchange server..
Look it up..
And Thats exactly what my jabber roster looks like:
twolf1973@yahoo.jabber.org
thomas%charron@msn.jabber.org
And anyone can set these up. If AIM or yahoo allowed us to talk direct, we could just as easily be twolf1973@yahoo.com. The only reason for our naming being slightly different, is we need to be able to resolve to a transport.
Depending on the server, as with my home server, transports can be given simple names, such as aim, icq, etc..:
TwOlf1973@aim
123456789@icq
Check out http://www.jabber.org
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
That is becouse currently, none of the external systems have allowed any OTHER external systems to exist as a seperate, connected entity. In the case of a truely open server to server protocol, you would not NEED to have an account on AIM.
It looks and sounds to me like that is what AIM wishes to do. In this case, and external entities would take care of validation, and yes, the messages could just be sent into the ether, just like email currently..
My point is, the jabber protocol itself doesn't care. It simply enforces domains the same way email does. The only reason why transports current require 'logging in' is becouse no other IM system supports the idea of an external server based interface..
Once the external systems can address an entity as ANYTHING but a user, you would no longer have to login..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Beouse of the interest thats been generated in Jabber in this article, I feel the need to point out some resources for more information:
http://www.myjabber.org
http://www.jabbercentral.org
http://www.jabber.com
And of course
http://www.jabber.org
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Hopefully..
In the case of Jabber IM, names are simular to DNS, such as tcharron@jabber.org. The wonderfull thing about this is, in many cases, the thing on the other side can provide many more capabilities then just chatting. The Jabber protocol itself supports a rich set of Info/Query routines, whcih allow other 'things' to happen over the protocol, only limited by the imagination of the developers.
A perfect example is user database and news tickers. No person there, yet you can interact with them with just another address. And not by sending messages, either, by actually registering with them via a form.. 8-)
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want
Frankly, that's absolutely, exactly what we should do. Can anyone imagine how half-assed electronic mail would be if every single person on the internet had to send their messages through one giant email.com datacenter? How about if every single web page on the internet was stored on the single petabyte server at "www.com"? Do you complain that your ISP has to run it's own mail server? Well, why shouldn't it run it's own instant messaging server too? Even if you have a clueless ISP, you can get a free jabber account elsewhere for now.
This whole "internet" thing was supposed to be a distributed network, you know. I understand why AOL and Microsoft (everyone@passport.com?) don't like that, but I expect even the average Slashdot reader to be a little more clued in.
This is a very intelligent move on the part of AOL. Keep in mind that Windows XP is about to ship, and it's going to include MSN Instant Messenger. AOL knows that people are going to adopt MSN Instant Messenger because of the path-of-least-resistance factor (witness the dominance of IE due to its bundling with Windows).
... rather than requiring "peering agreements" that only let the big boys play.
Why is this important? Because of the interoperability nature of instant messaging.
Anyone who does IM knows that IM users hang out in packs. You gather together your circle of buddies and you all use the same IM system, because the different systems don't talk to each other. Most groups use AIM, some use ICQ or Yahoo Pager, some use MSN. (I don't use any of them, because all of my buddies hang out on the same BBS and we use the instant messenger built into its software.)
AOL wants to avoid a situation in which an entire group of buddies has to move from AIM to MSN-IM because some or most of them are using MSN-IM. If there's interoperability between systems, AOL gets to keep some of the users.
This is a very smart move. AOL knows it can't keep all of the users. AOL also knows that you just don't get into a market share war with Microsoft when Microsoft is playing the bundling card.
I just hope that the interoperability standard is an open one (like e-mail is, with SMTP) and anyone can write a system that ties in
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If the contact lists were encrypted with the 128bit key or OpenPGP cert, then neither a nor b would be *as* evil. And I can think of a couple of situations where c isn't very workable either. Namely, any situation involving moving to another system without being able to copy over your contact list (theft, loss, just hapen to be @ someone else's house).
Note that solving a & b, and solving c are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To wit: needing to remember a 128bit key, or carrying around the key or cert with you....might as well carry the contact list around in that event. However, it's still possible to take away some/most of the evilness of a & b (in this case, evilness being defined as "someone else knowing everyone on my contact list"), without resorting to c. You could even go one step further, and, since the contact list would be encrypted anyway, just use the associated encryption as just an "outer envelope".
Does this mean I get 5 pounds from you?
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Sure you do. How could I, an AIM user, talk to someone on MSN or Yahoo? They need an ID to reply to (and for the message to come from, naturally), so I have to have an account on those systems. Nobody is really doing any true interoperable IMing yet, as far as I know (where I put, say, "dcooper@im.msn.com" or "htruman@yahoo.com" into my ICQ or AIM client's buddy list).
I'm still not sure I see where you're going. If I'm logged into AIM, via Jabber, for example -- I've got an AIM account, it's loaded into jabber.org, and I'm using jabber.org's aim-t transport to get onto AIM -- then I can talk to other AIM users. They know who I am 'cause I've got an AIM account, and they address their IMs to that account.
:(
But if I want to talk to someone on Yahoo!, can I do that without having first set up an account on Yahoo? A Yahoo! user couldn't simply talk to tjones@jabber.org, they'd have to have a Yahoo ID to address their IMs to, right? Therefore, I still need a login on Yahoo.
I saw the discussion on JDEV today about MSIM passing stuff through, and that sounds promising, but you're still limited to MSIM protocols, right? Until you can send a message to an arbitrary address (like aim:tjonesor yahoo:tjones) and have your buddy's client be able to talk back to jabber:tjones, then you'll still need multiple logins.
So, yes, the external systems care. But if everyone I knew were all on one system, I wouldn't need jabber. So as long as they're on different systems, those systems care, so my jabber client cares, so I care.
Or am I missing something terribly cool?
I recently switched from mIRC and ICQ over to Trillian. I also get the added benefit of being able to talk to the few people I know on MSN and AIM. Plus, it works through the firewall at work, since each individual transport can get through. And with Trillian, theres no need to create yet another silly IM network. 4 are enough for me (AIM, ICQ, MSN and Yahoo), so why create more? I can chat, chat in groups, and transfer files. What more do I need? I could care less if Jabber is all XML. I could care less that Oldigo(sp?) has some nifty feature. It's another network, with no purpose.
And to the comment above about Trillian being too much like an IRC client, turn off advanced mode to hide the huge interface window and get just the buddylist. It potentially may be renamed to IRC mode in the future to keep "advanced" people from turning it on and getting confused by the non IM client look.
Not entirely true.
EA.COM and AOL share a namespace (i.e. your EA.com login can be your AIM handle). Majestic uses a custom chat-client that hosts both players and game AI. While it looks similar to AIM, it is not AIM.
The IETF is already working on it:
h tm l
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.
Kinda like IE and Netscape? Unfortunately, the standards bodies take too long. By the time something is decided, MSN/AIM will have the whole thing even more locked up than it is now.
I agree with the sentiment: open protocols (without proprietary extensions that prevent inter-operability) work best. But only if they are there from the beginning.
As far as the IM issue: I don't use 'em at all. I prefer to talk in person.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
BTDT, have the wedding ring and child to show for it.
Much gas was used, and many homework assignments skipped. And yes, IM was used.
But in the long run, F2F was more important and worth the bucks/time.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
It was only a requirement if the messaging service was extended to other area's like voice messaging or video messaging. Other than that they can keep it as locked up as they want.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
Jarl was the first I did check out, it actually works fairly well, though a little heavy on startup.
It's just like the browser problem, anyone can write something to parse some HTML, but getting a system as featured as Netscape (WITHOUT the crashing) takes time and effort.
I think jabber will see more use in the future from embedded systems and things of that nature
Time will tell
Anything is possible given time and money.
Gaim logs to AOL, MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and IRC together. It's one of the sweetest things I have ever seen for linux.
Makes me wonder if the gaim folks got any permitions from all these to clone them.
Personally, I think all ISPs shoud host a Jabber server and give away a custom Jabber client to their subscribers. Why this is not a part of every ISP's "internet connection kit" is beyond me. You put the CD in, it dials to the ISP, installs a browser, mail client and Jabber client and you already have a working account on your ISP's server just like POP3.
It's a Catch-22. I can't use Jabber in favor of AIM until all of my contacts on AIM also use it. And they can't start using Jabber until all of their contacts (for example, me) stop using AIM.
I'm making an incremental switch. Now that I found an obscure Jabber aim-t that AOL is not noticing enough to bother to block, Jabber is starting to work better for me (on Windows, non-the-less)
I'd love to see everyone use Jabber too, but not everyone wants to either take the trouble to do what I've done or give up on their AIM-only contacts all together.
As I said in my original post, AOL tends to block the major Jabber servers' aim-t's (AIM transports). Because of that, I'm forced to find obscure servers whose aim-t's are less likely to be blocked. All-in-all, it makes using AIM throuh Jabber a painful experience -- just anothe rbarrier to keep AIM'ers from switching.
The new game, Majestic, uses AIM. Perhaps that is going to be AOL's example of interoperability. While the game sounds cool I certainly no one hopes to say that will count as being non-monopolistic.
While AOL may or may not have plans to expand the service at the moment, they probably want to keep their options open. By adding interoperability now, they can add new features to their service at any time.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I was about to post the protocol, except the front part of the protocol states what you state and, of course, the lameness filter prevents it from being posted. GPLed fucking document, fuck slashdot.
I don't know what you mean about featureless chatrooms, you mean the lack of advertising? That's a bad thing?
Clients using TOC haven't had any problems. Clients using OSCAR are begging to be dicked.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Oh but it is, my friend, it is. You see, Jabber tried to use OSCAR, which AOL has said repeatedly is an internal to AOL protocol. Meanwhile Trillian uses TOC, which is the publicly documented protocol that AOL encourages everyone to use. You'll notice that Trillian, TiK, Net::AIM, and others never have a problem, because AOL is glad that they follow the rules and content to leave them alone.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Monkey sense
What someone should do is create a standard, so anyone could use whatever software conforms to the standard with whatever server is ready for it.
I'd rather prefer the IETF working on that kind of things than the oh-so-powerful AOL deciding who (MSN?) do they allow to be compatible.
Still, even if it is not what I'd prefer, it is nice to see I will not need MSN + ICQ to be able to chat with my friends on the two sides in the close future.
Really Fast Messaging, aka RFM. That would be a confusingly funny acronym.
Yes.
(That story is titled, "MS, CNET On 7-Day Messenger Outage.")
Of course, if something like that never happens again, then maybe people won't switch, but if MSN locks out people from their chat like that again, people will hunt for alternatives.
(Not to mention that IM already has a captive userbase. I got an IM account to keep in touch with people at the college I go to, as well as people from highschool, and my family members. If everyone else uses IM, why use anything else?)
(And a sidenote to Jabber fans: I tried to get people to switch to it for a while, but finally gave up after two months. Yeah, I know, I like Jabber too, but if I can't get my contacts to switch, I can't switch. So it's AIM I use - because that's the IM service that anyone I'd instant message uses.)
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Why is everyone trying to use AOL's IM? It is just email with a different interface. So.....just create a different interface for emails that are flagged as "IM_AN_INSTANT_MESSAGE", so the messages aren't saved and the text is just displayed in a window.
We don't need another damn marketing protocol...
With an address like
mymsnaddy:msn
unsurprisingly close to
myemail@mydomain.com
hence, it uses the same system of unique ids (DNS) already in place.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Yeah, jabber would be nice if it actually worked consistantly... Unfortunatly it's hit or miss as to which services it will decide to connect to on any given day.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
Ok so Im a dork for replying to my own post but heres more clarification on the mandatory opening of AOL's unified IM system:
So it looks like we may be heading for an RFC on this after all, but the timline is at best vague. AOL will of course keep itself closed as long as possible, especially since XP will integrate the MSN client into the desktop (sigh) and draw most of us deeper into Bills Clutches. The info was gleaned from CNET, which lists ALL of the provisions of the merger if you're interested:
http://technews.netscape.com/news/0-1005-200-442 75 68.html
That the opening of their Instant Messenging servers/protocol was a condition of the merger?
Later this point became a REQUIREMENT of the merger.
The original story on CNNfn can be found here:
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/12/14/deals/aoltimewar ne r/
Probably not the Good Thing© that MSN (the always objective mouthpiece of the Peoples Republic of Redmond) would have you believe. Particularly after the recent battles with AOL over desktop space. Look for Microsoft to say something along these lines, down the road: "Aw, gee, gosh. It's not really all that great so we decided that for the good of people everywhere (who will really want this anyway, since we know what's best for them and they trust us) we'll just circumvent it and establish the Microsoft Standard Immediate Messenger©, complete with Shared Source©"
I suggest we build the missiles Bush wants and aim (no pun intended) them at Herndon VA and Redmond WA.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If you use Jabber just to talk to your AIM buddies, then you are defeating the whole purpose of the Jabber system. You're right, you might as well just use Trillian or Everybuddy.
Jabber, on the other hand, is an IM system. "Transports" allow you to communicate with other IM systems through Jabber, which can aid you in talking with your old buddies. However, the main reason to make the switch to Jabber is because it is a distributed network with an open protocol just like all other important Internet protocols. WWW is open, E-mail is open. Shouldn't IM be also?
By itself, Jabber is a decentralized network that operates almost exactly the same way e-mail does. Who cares about AOL and these other services? Dump AIM. Dump ICQ. Dump it all. Use transports like training wheels, but remember Jabber is where the future is. It is the way IM should have been all along. Grab a client at jabbercentral.com and get involved.
-Justin
Psi - ICQ-style Jabber client.
But they are trying to shirk that work and actually close things off while pretending to be open. This is dangerous for them. Quite frankly I would like them to see them stay closed. It would give more impetus to Jabber... Imagine while MSN and AOL are fighting hard, we could be slowly growing a much more deadly user base on an open source project...
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
it's interesting to see a sudden interest in "interoperability."
This isn't a sudden interest. In fact, it's not an interest at all. For those who don't recall, this interoperability is a requirement of AOL's merger with Time-Warner. The FTC made it a requirement, supposedly to help prevent abuse of monopoly in the future.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm always suprised how little support the Jabber project is getting. They've done some fantastic things there.
The Jabber system can communicate with almost every IM system out there (ICQ, MSN, etc.) There's even IRC support.
Also, the whole thing is completely cross-platform. There are even clients for handhelds (http://www.jabbercentral.org/clients/).
And do I have to mention it's entirily GPL?
It's not GPL. It use it's own Jabber Open Source License. At least it's approved by the Open Source Initiative.
'AOL said that it's almost done developing the technology that would allow its messaging services to operate with those offered by other industry players.'
.ini file so as to not use the .dll for that service...decreasing the already low memory usage of the application. And the multitude of skins kick ass.
Well, maybe they don't know it, but they must already be done, because Trillian connects to their servers. It's not open source, but it does connect w/ AIM, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, and IRC. Additionally, whatever services you don't use, you can modifiy an
I tried Jabber, but didn't find any projects that were currently connecting to AIM or that were as far along as Trillian for that matter.
It's the Associated Press.
There has got to be a half dozen programs out there that offer a variety of different services. I use ICQ (unfortunately now owned by AOL (*sigh*)) because I consider it to be a more powerful client. Like it or not, AOL is the industry leader. If AOL can develop a protocol that everyone else can follow, that's a good thing. AOL is worried about lag time over the net, but I don't see this as a problem...IM will go from "Instant" to "Really Fast." There is also the worry about Spam. If AOL makes this a standard, then people should be able to modify the standard to resist any type of spamming problems.
The thing that makes me breath a little easier is that AOL has to do it right, because this is something AOL customers want the ability to do. AOL would like to get everyone else using AOL products, but now that that is an impossibility due to the limits the FCC placed on AOL, and AOL will have to make a product that AOL customers will be able to interact with (I hope). I do not understand AOL's apprehension to a unified standard...AOL has benefited from open email as much as anyone, and if AOL offers a superior product, people will want to use their IM client.
We shall see if this AOL offering becomes everything I know the community wants it to become.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Does this mean that now my buddy list is going to have a whole bunch of names proceeded by AOL, MSN, ICQ, etc? Take my nick for instance, will it be AIM-Uttles rather than just Uttles?
I think this is really cool if they ever get it to work, but I do wonder exactly why AOL is suddenly interested in this, and I wonder if Yahoo, MSN, and others will share the interest.
On the other hand, it's about time "chatting" was standardized just like internet browsing, file transfer, telnet, email, etc. When you think about it, the single "backbone" and multiple client scheme is the way most things on the internet should operate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
ICQ is a good client... MSN better, imho... but both are just such memory hogs supporting crappy organizations. *cough*evil*cough*
Clients like Odigo already communicate on all the current IM servers, and it's nice to see they'll stay.
Icq... 30 MB memory... bitch...
Screw 3...
Two different depts at AOL are at work here. One is the legal dept trying to make sure that current policy of only authorized clients use the service. The engineering dept, being separate from legal, are the ones developing specs for an interoperable network. Until that interoperable network is ready, legal will continue to go after unauthorized clients. Because legal realizes their days of going after third-party clients are numbered, they are making sure that they prove to the company that they continued to do their job despite pending changes, hence many employees in legal will have a case when it comes time for promotions, dept budget, etc.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
...but who cares? Everyone should use Jabber I think. Spread it to the Windows world too! Why let huge corporations like AOL or M$ control our messaging
Find nice cocktail recipes @ www.spitzy.net
They actually been intregrating ICQ with AIM for a while now. Last I checked (months ago) you could log onto the ICQ network via the AIM client by using your UIN as a screenname. (You could only see ICQ users though..not AIM users.) Eventually they want to completely merge the two networks so you could see both AIM and ICQ users on the same client.
--
"I strongly urge both the faint of heart and the faint of butt to leave the room at this time."
- Strong Bad